Well, ed, I think evil doer applies to the people who let people in Iraq die because they were looking the other way when Saddam was killing his people and paying people to kill Israelis. Why did they do this? for oil contracts from Saddam. I think evil doer applies to the people at the U.N. who look the other way or refuse to deal with U.N. peacekeepers abusing children. The list of abuses and scandals is quite large. Oh, I really think that the term evil doer applies to the men who killed 3000 americans, blew up trains and hotels, behead people that they have captured and tortured blow up pizza parlors, shoot rockets on a daily basis into israel, hijack oil tankers, strap bombs on and detonate them in crowds of innocent people, knife women on buses because they have decided not to be muslim anymore, knife and shoot artists who make movies about the mistreatment of muslim women and on and on. And, oh ya, they haven't decided to stop doing any of these things and in fact believe that they are going to heaven for doing these things. But yah, I disagree with you on manmade global warming and high taxes and the role of government as do the people I read and listen to. So yah, were actually the "evil" people. And once again, what is it with you simple minded fools. What is it with the holocaust denial accusations, name calling and swearing. Can't you discuss controversial subjects without using the simplistic tactic of calling the other guy a holocaust denier, crackpot, rightwing hack, homophobe, or any of the other silly things you use instead of dealing with those who disagree with your point of view in a civil way. You guys are just lame and pathetic.Much love, Bill(oh, one more thing, how old are you guys? Twelve? you sure act like you're on the low end of the age range. )

Quote:Well, ed, I think evil doer applies to the people who let people in Iraq die because they were looking the other way when Saddam was killing his people and paying people to kill Israelis.

don't read history do you? The US supplied Saddam with the chemical warfare and other 'evil' technology during the 70's when it was fighting Iran. It was THOSE weapons that Sadaam later used against his own people. what did the US do? nothing. they knew it was happening, they ignored it. until 15 years later, when it suited them to pick a fight, they choose to bring it up and hang him for it. He definitely deserved to be hanged - but he wasn't really executed for doing evil things to his own people, he was removed for US convienence in securing oil lines.

Quote:

I think evil doer applies to the people at the U.N. who look the other way or refuse to deal with U.N. peacekeepers abusing children. The list of abuses and scandals is quite large.

same case can be made against any church that has a choir-boy with priest mentors. because some priests abuse children, are all churches evil? The answer is to correct the individuals, not scrap the whole institution. Change makes it's way in today's world thru international laws and surgical strikes - not gagging, ignoring and carpet-bombing.

Quote:

Oh, I really think that the term evil doer applies to the men who killed 3000 americans, blew up trains and hotels, behead people that they have captured and tortured blow up pizza parlors, shoot rockets on a daily basis into israel, hijack oil tankers, strap bombs on and detonate them in crowds of innocent people, knife women on buses because they have decided not to be muslim anymore, knife and shoot artists who make movies about the mistreatment of muslim women and on and on. And, oh ya, they haven't decided to stop doing any of these things and in fact believe that they are going to heaven for doing these things.

So it stands to reason that you also would think that the term evil doer applies to the men who ordered military who killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, blew up trains and hotels and homes, kill people that they have captured and tortured, blow up mosques, shoot rockets on a daily basis, comandeer oil fields, detonate bombs on innocent people, rape women in mosques because they have decided to be muslim, punish and jail artists/citizens/scientists who speak out and on and on. And, oh ya, they haven't decided to stop doing any of these things and in fact believe that they are going to heaven for doing these things.

works both ways when you throw the 'evil' term around. it's a matter of perception and point of view.

I think it was Gandhi who said: "an eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind."

Quote:

But yah, I disagree with you on manmade global warming and high taxes and the role of government as do the people I read and listen to. So yah, were actually the "evil" people.

no doubt you disagree, you drank their kool-aid for a decade - probably irreversable. Don't tell me...ummm...you listen to the likes of Hannity, O'Reilly, Coulter and Limbaugh ? is that correct?

Ed, your moral compass is so broken it probably cannot be repaired. The oil for food scandal happened after the first gulf war and the sex scandals at the U.N. are just two scandals involving the U.N. The bishops providing oversight to the priests committing crimes and looking the other way should be prosecuted and jailed. It would be nice if the evil doers wouldn't hide behind innocent civillians when we are trying to kill them but they hide behind civillians because they know people with broken moral compasses will join their cause and try to stop the good guys from killing the bad guys. Of course, the bad guys will then kill the innocent people who are still alive and continue being evil. Our American soldiers and our allies have taken extreme measures trying to spare innocent civillians lives while we kill evil doers. They take heavier casualties, they give up the opportunity to kill the evil doers, and suffer a lot more because we try to save the lives of innocent people. You should go to Michael Yons website and get some real information about the war. CNN and the BBC are biased against the war and the U.S. and their coverage reflects this. The people doing the most killing in Iraq and Afghanistan are the terrorists, the Iranians and various other bad guys trying to keep those people in the feudal age. The hundred thousand number comes from a discredited article from the Lancet journal. Their methods accounting for the casualties was shown to be wrong. If the Iranians and Syrians would stop sending soldiers, foreign fighters, supplies and improvised explosive devises into Iraq that country would a lot closer to peace and a lot more of our soldiers would be alive. This is another situation that the U.N. is completely useless in handling. Also, neither Iran nor Iraq during their war were goog guys. It would be the equivalent of the socialists in Nazi Germany and Japan during the 1930's fighting each other. So please, don't blame the U.S. for their killing each other. You obviously listen to the wrong sources for what is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan and have no real perspective on right and wrong in the world. Yes, I read and listen to Bill O'reilly, Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Dennis Miller, Mark Levine and I love everything that Ann Coulter writes. No kool-aid was necassary. When people are making sense it is hard for a logical person to disagree with it. For the other readers of this post, please see for yourselves what these people have to say. They like low taxes, do not believe in manmade global warming, know that the terrorists need to be fought, and they think government should be small and less intrusive. Does that make them bad people? You should decide for yourselves. They have all written books or have radio programs. Check them out.Bill(and before someone says "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter" please think about what you are saying, If the U.S. can secure Iraq and Afghanistan the people will have democracy and better lives. If we are forced out by political correct silliness at home the terrorists will rape, torture, kill and enslave those innocent people. Freedom fighters and terrorists are determined by what they do when they win, not some silly quote stated in a thoughtless throw away line.)

ah yes, the other Bush-regime war cry: "If your not with us, then you are against us." heard it before. heard it enough.

time for a new era of reason, negotiation, and actually fighting only the real enemies instead of inventing new ones. The Bush admin didn't even pursue the real enemy, he turned around and attacked in the opposite direction. Talk about attention deficit disorder...he got over there and saw the oil opportunity, then suddenly Bin Laden went on the back-burner and he let the real enemies slip away in order to pursue the dollar signs in his and his cronies eyes. Idiotic.

Quote: you wrote:and I love everything that Ann Coulter writes

lol. 'nuff said.

most of the Bush admin will either be prosecuted or pardoned....and of course, the left will be blamed instead of the admin's illegal, unconstitutional and imoral acts.

I'm guessing at least Cheney and Rumsfeld will need to be pardoned on Bush's way out the door.

Yes, I believe smog exists as well as other types of pollution. These things need to be cleaned up so that people can lead safe, healthy, happy lives. If you go back to the first two or three posts I just warned about trusting the U.N. on man made global warming. That is when the holocaust denier, right wing wacko charges started flying. Other than that I think the posts went well.Bill

Its far from ridiculous. Research shows that the media in the U.S. has more people who are on the left than the right and internal research at the BBC found that there was a left wing bias in their reporting. Its not a matter of being against us, it is more a certain world view that permeates journalism as a whole. Bernie Schwartz has written extensively on the bias in main stream media here in the states. Check out his books and you could also look at Mark Steyn and his work. He was brought into Canadian courts because of his book America Alone. The media has been reluctant to report on Muslim terrorism and became even more hesitant after Daniel Pearl had his head cut off. Look at Vince Flynn, the author of the Mitch Rapp books. He is having a hard time getting a movie deal because the studios are afraid to make movies about muslim terrorists. As far as bias goes, look at the Jason Bourne movies. Vince Flynn pointed out that of the three Bourne novels only the first novel dealt with bourne being hunted by the C.I.A. because they thought he was a rogue. Apparently the next two novels dealt with bourne hunting Carlos the Jackal. The movies were completely different. An out of Control C.I.A. is trying to get bourne. Flynn Makes the point that this was a concious choice to take an anti-american view point. All throughout the media you find Anti-American attacks. Do you find it weird that when people on your side attack the war effort you are saying the exact same things as the terrorists do? Rush just played a clip of a liberal terrorist expert who was complaining that al-queda is a racist organization because it pays its black terrorists less than it pays its arab terrorists. That whole killing innocent people is just a minor problem that they have.Bill

Quote:Yes, I believe smog exists as well as other types of pollution. These things need to be cleaned up so that people can lead safe, healthy, happy lives.

That's progress anyway. maybe it'll take another decade for the right wingers to listen to the rest of the world instead of denying and ignoring the issue of man-made climate change...by then they would have hopefully lost another election spewing the same'ol same'ol neo-con agenda like McCain and moose-hunting mom Palin.

you acknowledge smog and pollution exists, but you don't agree that sustained large amounts of it has no effect on the climate, patterns or temperature? whats your theory on that? it dissapates into space, so no need for stricter regulations?

darker clouds would therefore: A) reflect more heat from the sun. B) reflect less heat from the sun. C) cause people to allow the company owners to ignore air pollution's possible long-term effects due to it being too expensive to change their policy.

In the 70's we used to see pictures of an industrial city's smog-filled skyline and think: holy crap, we have to DO something about that - no one disagreed. Now in the 21st century, we see pictures of smog from SPACE, and it doesn't even phaze half the people....just shrug it off.

The main concern of the right, is that if the left keeps agressively demanding tighter and tighter regulation, then companies will be less competitive edge since they will have an unfair disadvantage when competeing against companies with governments that have no restrictions.

so does that mean in order to compete with industrial-age 2nd and 3rd world countries, we have to lower our standards to their level? no, it doesn't. What we do is use technology and government incentives to point companies in the right direction: up and forward. not down and backwards.

That means sufficiently funding research and technology (that always goes lacking in a republican government-since research implies long-term investment payoff as oppossed to the right view of short-term thinking and reactionary policies).

The problem with the neo-con philosophy and why it fails every time it is given an 8-year cycle is this: They want to privatize the profits and socialize the losses.

The rich get richer and expect bailouts from the public when their profit-margin is threatened. Who is there to bail out the public? That's when a democrate is elected, to fix the imbalance.

same thing with environmental policy: the neo-cons let the industries write their own. of course they don't want to pay to run cleaner - it costs money with no short-term payback....let the tax money clean it up. Profiteering with no accountability. short-term and greed-centric thinking.

Here's what we should do: go back to the Kyoto meetings that we haven't been to in 8 years, and push for international environmental standards. If a country doesn't meet the standards, or are not moving toward them, then they cannot participate in the global economy in the same capacity as countries that do adhere to the standard. Simple as that. make everyone's playing field even by having the same evironmental standards for all. sortof a Geneva convention agreement or pact, except with oversight.

I think thats a more positive direction than whats been going on with the current administration's policy of: ignore the world and do what we want.